|
MEMC successfully defends European patent |
|
|
|
Oct 18, 2005 at 04:55 PM |
By Dr Mike Cooke
The European Patent Office (EPO) has apparently upheld the grant to
MEMC of a European patent (EP-B-O 972 094, as amended) on defect-free
silicon for wafers of 200mm diameter or greater, which was opposed by
the Sumitomo Mitsubishi Silicon Group (SUMCO). MEMC is advised that a
written decision to this effect will be issued in the near future.
The patent was first filed in 1998, granted in 2001. SUMCO's opposition
came in 2002. The wafers resulting from the patented "defect-free"
process is trademarked by MEMC as "Perfect Silicon".
Nabeel Gareeb, MEMC's CEO, comments that his company believes that
"other competitors are also violating our intellectual property rights."
In addition to the European decision, MEMC also claims a favourable
appellate ruling in a patent infringement case in the USA, also against
SUMCO, which relates to the counterpart US patent. The US patent
infringement case is expected to go to trial in 2006.
As is usual in such cases, the opposing party has a slightly different
interpretation (not available at the moment for the Euro decision).
SUMCO reported (6 October 2005) that a patent infringement lawsuit
filed by MEMC in the Northern District Court of California in December
2001 ended in April 2004 with a final judgment of non-infringement in
favour of SUMCO ("the first judgment").
Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
(CAFC). [Why appeal a "favourable" judgement?] On August 22, 2005, the
CAFC issued a decision that "affirmed-in-part, reversed-in-part, and
remanded" the first judgment, according to SUMCO.
SUMCO reports the text of the US decision:
‘First, with respect to "affirmed-in-part," the CAFC affirmed the
judgment by the district court that "SUMCO cannot be liable for direct
infringement". Regarding "reversed-in-part and remanded," the CAFC
decided that "there are genuine issues of material fact" with regard to
the judgment by the district court that SUMCO is not liable for induced
infringement. The CAFC stated "that part of the district court's
judgment is thus reversed, and the case is remanded to the district
court for further proceedings." The CAFC also stated that the further
proceedings will involve (i) construing the claims of the patent; (ii)
determining whether a third party other than SUMCO directly infringes;
and (iii) determining whether, if there is direct infringement on the
part of the third party, SUMCO induces that infringement. Thus, the
remanded case will be conducted consistent with the CAFC's decision.
Finally, both SUMCO's cross-appeal regarding attorney's fees and MEMC's
appeal regarding the district court's striking of MEMC's infringement
claim charts were rejected by the CAFC.'
|
News 
